9/11 and the Green Scare: It’s High Time for a Paradigm Shift

“War: A massacre of people who don’t know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don’t massacre each other”
(Paul Valéry)

A nation and a world transformed

Until recently, historians have looked at the past essentially through Eurocentric or Western-centric lens. Their worldview has therefore been heavily centered on and biased towards Western civilization, chiefly in the form of apologetic stances and narratives with regard to colonialism and imperialism.

However, globalization has considerably altered scholars’ approach to history, and it’s no longer possible to study nations in isolation or to understand global history as emanating exclusively from the West.

That’s why a new discipline called “Global history” emerged in the 1980’s as a dynamic, innovative and productive field of scholarly inquiry, one that takes the connectedness of the world as its point of departure, and the world’s past as an integrated whole. Such an evolution obviously poses a fundamental challenge to the premises and methods of the henceforth outmoded and, often, truncated or insular Western-centric perspective.

A case in point in this respect is the story of 9/11 in relation to the so-called “Islamist” or even “Islamic” terrorism.

In the words of Mark LeVine[2], on September 11, 2001, a clash of civilizations that had been brewing for decades finally erupted, splitting the world in two. On one side, the forces of Good, a coalition of the willing committed to promoting liberty and combating terror wherever it appears. On the other, the Axis of Evil, an unholy alliance of religious extremists who hate freedom and are prepared to go to any lengths to suppress it. United only by their mutual hatred and incomprehension, the West and the Muslim world can never be reconciled with one another. The end of history has come, and it is time to choose sides. You’re either with us, or you’re against us. This is, LeVine explains, at least what “they want us to think”.

In fact, on 22 July, 2004, ten commissioners—five Republicans and five Democrats—came together to present “without dissent” the narrative of their official report on that story and the recommendations that flow from it to the President of the United States, the Congress, and the American people for their consideration. They stated that : “At 8:46 on the morning of September 11, 2001, the United States became a nation transformed (…) More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center, 125 died at the Pentagon, 256 died on the four planes. The death toll surpassed that of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. This immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamic extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan”. They also said that “the enemy is not just ‘terrorism’. It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Laden and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both (…) Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism”.

Four years after the publication of this report, Philip Shenon, a veteran investigative reporter at The New York Times, wrote a book[3] in which he investigated the 9/11 investigators. Among other findings, he revealed: stunning shortcomings in the Commission’s work; who influenced its findings; how political considerations interfered; and what didn’t make into the final report. Among other discoveries he made : how the executive director of the Commission, Philip Zelikov, maintained a clandestine relationship with Karl Rove and took actions that were seen as shielding President G. W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice from the panel’s scrutiny ; how Vice President Dick Cheney tried to pressure the Commission to change its assessment of his actions on 9/11 ; how the Commission was used to justify the invasion of Iraq ; and, most importantly , how the events of 9/11 could have been avoided and why the Commission could not tell the whole story.

Back in 1947, historian Charles Beard said that the foreign policy of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman could best be described as “perpetual war for perpetual peace”. Borrowing from Beard’s phrase for the title of his book[4] published in 2002, Gore Vidal claimed that “fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid (…) Although we stigmatize other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We honor no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations but do not pay our dues. We complain of terrorism, yet our empire is now the greatest terrorist of all. We bomb, invade, subvert other states. Although We the people of the United States are the sole source of legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented in Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine. We the unrepresented people of the United States are as much victims of this militarized government as the Panamanians, Iraqis, or Somalians. We have allowed our institutions to be taken over in the name of a globalized American Empire that is totally alien in concept to anything our founders had in mind”.

Narrative vs. facts

More than sixteen years after the 9/11 events, the official narrative of such a sophisticated and ruthless act of terrorism, which constituted a watershed in American and world history, is still debated and questioned by many, both in the United States and overseas.

So is the case, for instance, according to the results of a poll conducted by the Wilkinson College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, titled “The Chapman University Survey on American Fears Wave 3”, published in October 2016. It consisted of questions about levels of belief in nine different popular conspiracies/conspiracy theories. Thus, the most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States (54.3% of the sample) is that “the government is concealing information about 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief”. The survey also found strong evidence that “the United States is a strongly conspirational society”. Only about a fourth of Americans (26%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with all nine conspiracy theories. The remaining three-fourths (74%) of the population finds at least one conspiracy theory somewhat convincing; if not more than one. Fully 10% of the sample agreed or strongly agreed with all nine conspiracies.

Surveys like this one and other studies do not seem, however, to have had any resonance with opinion makers in the US and, in a lesser extent, elsewhere. Their certainties are set in stone, no matter what: “There is war on. And the war is against all of Western civilization (…) If we do not destroy the scourge of radical Islam, it will ultimately destroy Western civilization (…) Political correctness of not discriminating against Muslims is getting us killed”.

The quote is from Kathleen Troia McDonald Farland, a former Deputy National Security Adviser to US President Donald Trump, whose renomination as ambassador to Singapore was sent to the Senate for confirmation as recently announced by the White House. Both her attitude and new appointment—endorsed by among others, Cold War veteran Henry Kissinger, for whom she worked in the 1970’s—come as no surprise. The would-be ambassador has worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. In the latter administration, she worked as a speech writer to then Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, whose 1984 “Weinberger Doctrine” laid out guidelines for circumstances in which the US should become involved in military operations overseas, and is echoed in the Trump administration’s “peace through strength” approach.

However, what is somewhat surprising is the kind of troubling and confusing discourse such as renowned journalist and author Fareed Zakaria’s—the son of an Indian politician and Islamic theologian. In an article titled “Why they hate us”[5], he wrote “The next time you hear of a terror attack—no matter where it is, no matter what the circumstances—you will likely think to yourself ‘It’s Muslims again’. And you will probably be right (…) That’s crucial to understand because it sheds light on the question ‘Why do they hate us?’ Islamic terrorists don’t just hate America or the West. They hate the modern world, and they particularly hate Muslims who are trying to live in the modern world”.

No wonder with such a dominant perception to come across an opinion like the one written by Thomas L. Friedman in October 2017, in the wake of the mass murder committed by an American citizen killer, armed to the teeth with military-style weapons acquired easily and legally because of “crazy lax gun laws”. Right from the outset, Friedman lamented “If only Stephen Paddock had been a Muslim. If only he had shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas. If only he had been a member of ISIS. If only he had a picture of him posing with a Quran in one hand and his semiautomatic rifle in another (…) Then we know what we’d be doing. We’d be scheduling immediate hearing in Congress about the worst domestic terrorism event since 9/11”!

Now, how if we looked at the whole story of 9/11 and its aftermath through a “Global historian’s” lens, one that goes beyond the stereotypes and below of the radar of the all-pervasive, all-powerful Western mainstream media? The narrative would most likely go along the following lines.

During the past 200 years, no “Arab country” has ever attacked the West. How could it have been otherwise? About five hundred years ago, beginning with the Spanish and Portuguese, and thanks to its technological superiority, the West launched an ever-expanding process of military dominance and, later on, colonization.

Indeed, between 1492—which coincides with the end of the Arab rule in Andalusian Spain— and 1914, Europeans conquered 84% of the globe. They further extended their global reach after WWI, by dismantling the defeated Ottoman Empire and parceling out its Muslim provinces among the victorious powers. As a result, none of the great groups of Islam –outside Africa and the Dutch East Indies—was under the form of government that prevailed when the war began. In other words, 85% of the Muslims at that time (numbering in all 240 million) or six out of every seven living Muslims were ruled by Western powers.

In a convincingly argued book he wrote in 2015, combining wide reading, judicious use of data, and economic models, Philip T. Hoffman, who is Professor of Business Economics and History at the California Institute of Technology, asks the important question “Why did Europe conquer the World?” He demonstrates that conventional explanations—such as geography, epidemic disease, and the Industrial Revolution—fail to provide the right answers. Hoffman’s short answer to the question is that by fighting constant wars with each other—using gunpowder as a distinctive and decisive military technology—and never allowing a single hegemon to emerge, Western polities had greater and radically different incentives and opportunities compared to their counterparts elsewhere. This peculiar historical feature drove them to make and win wars.

Samuel Huntington, before Hoffman, did make the same argument—but is bizarrely seldom quoted on saying it—when he asserted that “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do”.[6] He also warned that “to preserve Western civilization in the face of declining Western power, it is in the interest of the United States and European countries (…) to recognize that Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multi-civilizational world”.[7]

It’s the economy, stupid

How does this historical retrospective relate to a subject dealing with the American involvement in the contemporary conflicts of the “Greater Middle East and North Africa”? The simple answer is to be found in the phrase coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid”.

Perhaps the best, most succinct and accurate explanation for this is the one put forward in 1999 by Thomas L. Friedman. In his book on globalization[8], he says “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas (…) And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps”.

Two years later, Andrew Bacevich explained the assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power, in a deeply informed and impressive book.[9] Having examined the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton—and George W. Bush’s first year in office—he found that those post-Cold War successive administrations have adhered to a well-defined “strategy of openness”. Motivated by imperative of economic expansion, that strategy, he says, aims to foster an open and integrated international order, or rather a global imperium, thereby perpetuating the undisputed primacy of the world’s sole superpower. The aggressive pursuit of such a strategic objective has met considerable resistance however. And in order to overcome such a resistance, U.S. policymakers have “with increasing frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy”.

As recalled by Antonia Juhasz[10], on September 20, 2001, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced that the Bush administration would be “countering terror with trade”! Indeed, in a Washington Post Op-Ed, he argued that “free trade” and “freedom” are inextricably linked and that trade “promotes the values at the heart of this protracted struggle”. And in the name of “fighting terror”, he called for a series of corporate globalization agreements—including negotiations to expand the World Trade Organization and East Track authority[11]—which had already been a matter of serious Congressional debate and conflict. And only four months later, in one of the most important State of the Union addresses ever, President Bush repeated Zoellick’s characterization of the September 11 events as an “opportunity” and called on Congress to pass his corporate globalization agenda, by explaining that “in this moment of opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries (…) In every region, free markets and free trade and free societies are proving their power to lift lives. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom”.[12] Juhasz concludes by saying that “the mantra, soon to be repeated in speech after speech by President Bush and his subordinates in the buildup to war, was that this administration would be ‘trading in freedom’. ‘Free trade’ and ‘free markets’ were synonymous with ‘freedom’, and the United States was willing to implement this theory with military force. It was pure imperial ambition, which the advocates of the Bush Agenda had been waiting for decades to implement”.

Indeed, the “Global War on Terror” launched by George W. Bush following the attacks of September 11, had a lot to do with the American economic system. This system—America’s brand of capitalism—writes Jacques R. Pauwels[13], functions first and foremost to make extremely rich Americans like the Bush “money dynasty” even richer ; without warm or cold wars, however, he adds, this system can no longer produce the expected result in the form of the ever-higher profits the moneyed and powerful of America consider as their birthright. Pauwels argues that the great strength of American capitalism is also its great weakness, namely it’s extremely high productivity, to which “Fordism” contributed to a large extent in the early 20th century. It’s this high productivity that led to the chaotic disharmony between the ever-increasing supply and the lagging demand, and ultimately to the “Great Depression” of 1929.

In the United States the crisis only ended during, and because of, WWII. Thus “economic demand rose spectacularly when the war which had started in Europe, and in which the USA itself was not an active participant before 1942, allowed American industry to produce unlimited amounts of war equipment. Between 1940 and 1945, the American state would spend no less than 185 billion dollars on such equipment, and the military expenditures’ share of the GDP thus rose from an insignificant 1.5 per cent to approximately 40 per cent. The main beneficiaries by far of this unprecedented wartime economic boom were the country’s business people and corporations, known as “Corporate America” or “Big business”. Between 1942 and 1945, writes the historian Stuart D. Brandes, the net profits of America’s 2,000 biggest firms were more than 40 per cent higher than during the period 1936-1939.

Nonetheless, with the return of peace in 1945, this unprecedented affluent period in America’s history was likely to be endangered by the ghost of a second “Great Depression” resulting from yet another severe imbalance between supply and demand. This meant that there had to be found “new enemies” and wars in order to justify the maintenance, or even the increase, of high levels of military and defense expenditures, which are considered vital to keep the wheels of America’s economy spinning. And so, the “Communist threat” provided the urgently needed foe, and the “Cold War” the bountiful theatre of struggle and competition between the then two “superpowers”, the United States and the Soviet Union.

As this situation came to an end with the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the breakup of the Soviet Empire in 1991, the United States, or rather, “Corporate America” found itself once again orphaned of the “necessary enemy”. Therefore, the United States, which, according to Zbigniew Brzezinsky, became “the first, the last, and only global superpower”, needed to conjure up new enemies and threats.

One has to recall in this respect the resounding key point made by Georgi Arbatov to a group of senior American officials in 1987: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you. We are going to deprive you of an enemy”.

It also has to be recalled that when G. W. Bush took office in 2000, he brought with him Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, all of whom had served together in Ronald Reagan’s and G. H. Bush’s administrations. In 1992, while he was in the Defense Department, Wolfowitz—long recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican Party—was asked to write the first draft of a new National Security Strategy, a document entitled “The Defense Planning Guidance”.[14] The most controversial elements of that strategy were that the United States: should dramatically increase their defense spending; be willing to take preemptive military action; and be willing to use military force unilaterally, with or without allies.

A new Pearl Harbor?

Out of power during the Clinton administration, Wolfowitz and his colleagues presided over the creation, in 1997, of the Neoconservative think tank called “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC); which was placed under the chairmanship of William Kristol, the “Godfather” of American neoconservatism. And as soon as it was brought back to power within the G. W. Bush’s administration in 2000, Wolfowitz’s team got involved in shaping the U.S. neoconservative foreign policy, whose main principles were laid down in a defining document titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century”.[15] This 90-page document was written in September of 2000, a full year before the 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly enough, in its section V entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force”, it stated that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor”.

One year later, that event would indeed arrive. And sixteen years later, the most important question of “what did really happen on September 11, 2001?” remains unanswered. Was it the result of a needed conspiracy to execute a premeditated plan? Or was it a mere coincidence exploited by believers in conspiracy theories? Only time WILL tell. However, what History HAS already recorded for sure is that this catastrophic 9/11 event for America brought about equally catastrophic consequences, both intended and unintended, for America itself, for the Arab and Islamic world, and for the entire world.

Reacting to a column[16] written by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times—in which he says that the big challenge the United States face in the Arab and Islamic world is “the narrative” about America’s supposedly negative role in the region—Stephen M. Walt asks the question, “How many Muslims has the United States killed in the past thirty years, and how many Americans have been killed by Muslims?”. He thinks that coming up with a precise answer is probably impossible; he nevertheless gives his “back-of-the-envelope” analysis, based on estimates he has, in his own words, “deliberately chosen to favor the United States” by specifically taking the low estimates of Muslim fatalities. Even so, he recognizes, the US “has killed nearly 30 Muslims for every American lost. The real ratio is probably much higher (…) Even though we had just cause and the right intentions in some cases [as in the first Gulf war], our actions were indefensible (maybe even criminal) in others”.[17]

The ratio Walt referred to is indeed much higher. According to a landmark study[18] released in March 2015 by the Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility (PRS), the death toll from 10 years of the “War on Terror” since the 9/11 attacks is at least 1.3 million, and could be as high as 2 million. The 97-page report, authored by a Nobel Peace Prize-winning doctors’ interdisciplinary group, is the first to tally up the total number of civilian casualties from US-led interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, unsurprisingly, it has been almost completely blacked out by the English-language media. The PSR report is described by Dr Hans Von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary-general, as “a significant contribution to narrowing the gap between reliable estimates and tendentious, manipulated or even fraudulent accounts”. The true body count could be even higher still…

In addition to this shocking death toll and the widespread devastation of infrastructure in so many Arab and Muslim towns and cities that once bustled with life, the events of September 11 laid the basis for the emergence of a vicious form of Islamophobia both in the United States and Europe in particular. This “Green Scare”—that has striking parallels with the “Red Scare” of the Cold War—is only feeding the scourges of terrorism, violent extremism, racism, xenophobia and, ultimately, the confrontation of all against all within a redoubtable “Clash of Civilization”.

Former President George W. Bush was perfectly right when he declared, on September 16, 2001, that “This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while”. His Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was more explicit when he said that militarily, the United States was sailing into unchartered waters. He therefore warned that “what we’re engaged in is something that is very, very different from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf war, Kosovo, Bosnia, the kinds of things that people think of when they use the word ‘war’ or ‘campaign’ or ‘conflict’ ”.[19] Few days later, he admonished the American people—and the whole world, by extension—to “forget about ‘exit strategies’; we’re looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines. We have no fixed rules about how to deploy our troops”[20]. For Rumsfeld, September 11 provided “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world”. And as had been the case after Pearl Harbor in 1941, the chance to retaliate, Andrew Bacevich observed, “carried with it the chance to rectify. Thus, the code name that the Pentagon initially chose for its war against al Qaeda—scrapped only after complaints that it verged on being blasphemous—was Operation Infinite Justice”[21].

This war, like all other unjust wars—to borrow from George Orwell—was not meant to be won; it was meant to be continuous, in order to profit those who pull the strings of conflicts of this kind. And the flames of its fire, ignited in October 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan, are still fanning. They are even spreading fiercely. Thus, between October 2015 and October 2017, the US “fought terror” in 76 countries, or 39% of the total number of countries in the world, according to data contained in Brown University’s latest “Costs of War” Project.[22] It is already the longest war in American history. And it’s not going to end until the American people stops believing its false narrative and the lies that have given birth to it.

It’s high time for such a salutary paradigm shift. One that—to paraphrase Mark LeVine again—radically challenges the assumptions and prejudices that have long been taken for granted by both liberals and conservatives in the United States; one that would help prevent Western and Muslim fundamentalists alike from exerting a noxious influence on their respective societies; one that calls into question the familiar “Why do Muslims hate US?” and replaces it with the unfamiliar “What if THEY don’t?”, or even “Why do Westerners hate Muslims?”.

In the meantime, this horrendous, unending, and, most importantly, unwinnable war has cost the United States dearly. Not only in terms of needless sacrifice of blood and treasure, as documented by scores of recent reports and studies, but also in geopolitical and moral terms. For the US has lost its primacy in the “New American Century” according to the Pentagon itself, and few in the world continue to give credit to a feckless moralizing by an “indispensable nation” whose successive governments preach peace while waging wars to end all peace…

This post-Cold War and post-9/11 watershed change in the status of the US superpower, and what it means for the “World to come”[23] will be the main topic of a forthcoming analysis.

Read “Secretary Rumsfeld Interview With The New York Times”, 12 October, 2001. ↑

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Department of Defense designated the military response as “Operation Infinite Justice”. The origins of the name can be traced back to the 1998 Operation Infinite Reach airstrikes against Osama bin Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan in response to the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. However, pursuant to the disclosure of Operation Infinite Justice, Muslim groups protested the name on the basis that their faith teaches that Allah is the only one that could provide “infinite justice”. The code name was thus changed to Operation Enduring Freedom on Sept. 25, 2001. ↑

See http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/ . The “Cost of War” project, based at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, was launched in 2011 to document the costs of the post-9/11 wars, in a comprehensive fashion. ↑

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Comment

Name:

E-mail:

62 Comments

It’s never been about hate, or security, or even vengeance; it’s always been about the coin. How much, who has it, can we steal it? And the politics of this is the power to take it from whomever or wherever that coin lies. It doesn’t matter a whit to the Psychopaths That Be if it’s in the US, Europe, or Anywhere else, They want, and everyone else must give it up to them.
I have nothing but contempt for those (insert appropriate expletive here).

@Dr.Judy Wood: “Where did the Towers go?”. A good question. Ask mayor Giuliani. He ordered the evidence from the crime scene to be removed with unseemly haste. He must know the name of the contractors, and where he asked them to dump all the steel and all the rubble from those towers. And if Giuliani asked for all the evidence to be shipped “to China” then the contractors must know the name of the shipping company. And the shippng company can tell the police to which ports in “China”. And the Chinese authorities can tell the International Police where the towers /evidence went from there. Because the question, Where did the Towers go?, is a police question. The police must spread their Dragnet and recover as much of that evidence as possible. Then test it for nano thermite. And ask, where did such a huge quantity of thermite come from?

It is not good enough answer to say: Oh, the Towers were all cleared away and shipped “to China”.

@Norwegian: “The towers drifted away in the wind.” How can one know that until one has weighed the amount that was carted away by order of Mayor Giuliani? To say that millions of tons of steel and concrete “just drifted away in the wind” reveals an even more flippant attitude to police evidence than Mayor Giuliani carting it off “to China”. That huge amount of evidence from the crime scene — the most violent crime in US history — did not just vanish somewhere in “China”; even less did it just “drift away in the wind”; the evidence in all that steel, all that concrete and all that dust is being deliberately suppressed by some men in the USA who consider themselves above the Law.

Look at the pictures of the site taken while WTC7 is still visible in the background. There is no rubble pile!

The steel-shipped-to-China story is claptrap. Newscasters broadcasting from the site on 12th morning aired this obvious question ‘where has all the rubble gone?’ but this question was inconvenient to the narrative being spun around the event and it did not gain traction in the mainstream media as the day progressed.

The facts surrounding 9/11 are easily verifiable if one cares to look. The dust has settled.

It is noteworthy that Dr Judy Wood’s thorough and unimpeachable work is not publicised on this site.

”We have allowed our institutions to be taken over in the name of a globalized American Empire that is totally alien in concept to anything our founders had in mind.”

Ecocide, genocide, and slavery define US patriotism. There are no prettifying virtues about these buggered ”Founding Fathers”. I would say that today’s mass shootings throughout the US are a most credible tribute to them, just as Anders Behring Breivik is a true manifestation of ”European values” (along with the Eurocrats in Brussels).

From a “global history” perspective, it would be more appropriate to consider capitalism, imperialism and colonialism as the precursors of the world’s most dominant, fundamentalist religion, i.e., growth economics. At the heart of this religion is one of the world’s most pervasive fallacies — the “perfect circle” of production and consumption does not exist in a vacuum. The resources that make “stuff” are not unlimited and the earth is not an infinite sink. Since less than one percent of all professional economists and the leaders they advise believe in this fallacy, there is little hope of any substantive change in the immediate future. Even if a radical change in global leadership did occur quickly, it is extremely unlikely they could solve the exponential decay of our life-giving ecosystem.

I’d only disagree from your comment, Lokesh, at the margin-the life-sustaining biospheres have not ‘decayed’, but been destroyed in an orgy of greed and egomania, by the ruling capitalist psychopaths, who will NEVER change course unless forced to do so.

“Responding to May’s claims, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova described the prime minister’s remarks as a “circus show in the UK’s parliament.”

Which is exactly what it is. A carefully contrived psywar campaign one could see building from the beginning. The zionazis coordinated quisling May’s threats with those of quisling haley at the u.n. threatening Syria and her allies.

“Russian UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya fired back at the statement by Haley, stressing that Damascus has “every right to try to remove the threat to the safety of its citizens,” referring to the terrorists who have entrenched themselves in East Ghouta as a “hotbed of terrorism.”

Vasily Nebenzya said that Nusra Front* militants used chemical weapons in East Ghouta, injuring 30 civilians.

“This was done in order to prepare the ground for unilateral military actions against sovereign Syria,” Nebenzya said in reference to the attempts to put the blame on the Syrian government for the use of chemical weapons in the country.

The Russian Foreign Ministry then said Washington was spreading mass propaganda against Moscow in an attempt to demonize the Syrian government and subsequently topple it, underscoring that the information on the chemical attacks used by the United States was uncorroborated.”

The zionazis are engaged in ratcheting up their war against Russia, both directly, such as the skripal false flag, indirectly, ramping up their aggression against Syria. I’m surprised they didn’t organise something in Ukraine, or one of their other eastern europe monkey cages. Expect more this psywar week, as it is clear zionazia is operating on a schedule here.

One could easily plot 10 000 emanations, given suffiicient time and access to closely guarded archives, arising out of the virtually landless Venetian Oligarchy and it’s unrivaled (criminal) Intelligence service, including historic takeovers of all German states, Spain, Portugal, France, the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires, the Dutch Republic and eventually England, occurring for the final time upon completion of the First English Civil War (1642–1646). From then on the Venetian Intelligence apparatus would come to be largely based out of the City of London, which is why leading memebers of the British elite still refer to themselves as ‘Venetians.’

The rest you can do on your own, if you are so inclined. Suffice to say this criminal network has never been broken.

Of particular note, when members of the Octopus die, their wealth is returned to the Family and it’s fondo (fund), as was done when David Rockefellar announced his inheritance would go to the Rothschilds, or when Bill Gates said he was leaving none of his 60 plus billion dollar fortune to his children, now using what remains to genocide people mainly in impoverished third world countries.

I offer up only the first link as worthy of your attention. It is a good starting point for begining your study of how we find ourselves where we are today. Additional links from Wikipedia and the Jewish Encyclopedia are included to assist in marking a trail. As one would expect of all sources controlled by the Octopus are cleansed of most useful detail. Remeber also Modern Rabbinic Judaism is essentially an invention of the Octopus.

By the early 16th century Venetian Intelligence networks were present in all parts Europe and almost anywhere else European traders could be found. As mentioned, this criminal network exists to this day, Movie buffs might recall this organization was recently featured in the Bond film Spectre, although the role played by MI6, as presented in the film, is highly misleading. For all intents and purposes MI6 is subordinate to the Octopus.

When you think of the Donmeh and Young Turks, including Attaturk and current Turk President Erdogan, think of the Octopus. When you think of World Wars I & II, Zionism and the founding of modern Israel, think of the Octopus. When you think of Maidan, the war in Novorussia or Petro Poroshenko, think of the Octopus.

In fact, when you think of just about any war or major political event of the last 700 or more years, from the Reformation to 9/11, the birth of ISIS and so on, always you must understand we are experiencing machinations of the Octopus.

The author of this post discusses Global History and the necessity of a paradigm shift. I agree on the necessity of a paradigm shift but it must be towards the study of Intelligence History and of specifically the Octopus, which today might be in control of a staggering 50% of all accumulated wealth on the planet. Since they have stated in their own published documents (mainly via the UN) that they intend to reduce the world population to roughly 500 million, I can think of no more important project for study.

Thank you for your insights. I do not doubt that our “leaders” intention to reduce the world population to 500M is there (we happened upon the strange “Georgia Guidestones” a decade ago) – -in fact, given the demonic determination these creatures possess, the Ultimate Number Of Reduction of human life on Earth is Zero. We are to be moved out of the way for the next inhabitants: Transhumanist, immortal, satanic, defiant of the Creator. A bit of a problem has arisen: This was all supposed to be accomplished decades ago, and now the fiends are out of their minds, because their numerology- dictated actions are just not lining up according to The Agenda, and their terrible master is furious at them for failing to deliver. Hang on, friends, it is about to get really crazy. You may have read this: The “leaders” of earth are spending billions of $$$s trying to find life on other planets, while they are spending Trillions killing the life on this planet. Care to place a bet on which “goal” they are going to reach first?

Thanks to Where-Wolf for this very interesting comment. I think a clarification is needed concerning President Erdogan: As I understand it, he is not an agent of, or allied with, the Octopus or the Dönmeh but rather is opposed to it/them. See Wayne Madsen’s “The Dönmeh: The Middle East’s Most Whispered Secret” Part I and Part II.

The fact the pentagon and CIA are aiding and supporting Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria means that no one in the Pentagon or Agency actually believes Al-Qaeda did 9/11. If I thought 19 Arabs had caused all that damage the number one foreign policy goal would be to eliminate Al-Qaeda. Yet the US goes around regime changing everywhere, while supporting the “terrorists” and using them as proxy armies. The MSM is so bad none of them ever ask Mattis or Dunford about these obvious points.

”If I thought 19 Arabs had caused all that damage the number one foreign policy goal would be to eliminate Al-Qaeda.”

Not necessarily if your guiding principle reads ”let it happen on purpose”. I have always had the sneaky feeling that the US Deep State is literally possessed by contempt and hatred of its ”fellow Americans”. Hence, it doesn’t seem at all far fetched that the Deep State — knowing very well that there are billions of people around the world who hate the US — would deliberately ignore whatever warnings were coming. I must confess that, to me, this is almost a ”progressive” stance in a sense. Who would have thought the CIA would sacrifice people faithfully working in the very hubs of Western imperialism such as the WTO and the Pentagon? If true, then it would be ironically appropriate.

”Look at the evidence. The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane.”

Fine with me!

Again: Who would have thought the CIA would sacrifice people faithfully working in the very hubs of Western imperialism such as the WTO and the Pentagon? Indeed, firing a missile at the latter edifice should be acknowledged by a fistful of Nobel Peace Prize awards. If CIA were to claim responsibility, then its Peace Prize Committe in Oslo, Norway shouldn’t have any problems with the nomination either.

The people who died in the Pentagon false flag attack were administrative personnel investigating the missing Pentagon trillions and were close to an answer so they needed to be silenced. That the event was used as another Pearl Harbor was killing several birds with one stone…., ehh, missile.

Building 7 (WTC 7) hosted proof to the Enron schandal and several other large scale ponzi schemes. No missile but a state of the art controlled demolition.

Building 6 suffered a huge explosion in the basement just before the first plane struck. All Kuwaity gold disappeared that day, all $174 billion. According to George Wanker Bush the gold ‘evaporated’ because of the high temperatures.

John, the USA, with assistance from the Saud barbarians, the Pakistani intelligence agency (a CIA asset), the UK, and the Israelis, created al-Qaeda in the 1980s to destroy Afghanistan to get at the Soviet Union. After that the USA used al-Qaeda butchers in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Algeria, Xinjiang, Lebanon, Libya and Syria, to attack their victims. Then al-Qaeda had it best role-as the patsies in the Mossad/CIA/ US Sabbat Goyim/ rich US sayanim joint enterprise, 9/11. The signal for the long planned Clash of Civilizations war on Islam, that Israel has thus prevailed on its puppet hyper-power, the USA, to wage, in pursuit of the Oded Yinon Plan to destroy all Israel’s neighbours. That it has run out of control thanks to Russia’s valiant efforts, along with Iran, Hezbollah an the Syrians, to defeat al-Qaeda and Daash in Syria, and now threatens thermo-nuvlear obliteration, is regetable, but the killers in Thanatopolis DC seem not to care at all. Perhaps they really believe in The Rapture and ‘The Fire next time’.

”Only about a fourth of Americans (26%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with all nine conspiracy theories. The remaining three-fourths (74%) of the population finds at least one conspiracy theory somewhat convincing; if not more than one. Fully 10% of the sample agreed or strongly agreed with all nine conspiracies.”

Which begs the question what conspiracies/conspiracy theories, exactly. My suspicion — it could be wrong — is that the conspiracies peddled by the Ziomedia with Putin here, there, and everywhere don’t even count as such. Ditto hoaxes such as Saddam Hussein’s WMD, Ghadaffi’s/Assad’s/Kim Jong-un’s brutalization campaigns against their own people, and what-have-you. If all these were to be included, Pindo addiction to conspiracy theories would increase by at least one order of magnitude.

Don’t forget the sale of the buildings just before Sept 2001, and the Assurance contracts.

The raise of a “doctored” counter-narrative, so openly against every common sense, is the best indication of this new phase: fake conspiracy theories are here to mix together with other conspiracy theories (nevermind real or not), so to blur and confuse the masses under tons of foulness. The ultimate goal is probably brand all of them in future as “fake”, and therefore hit directly the expression freedom. We must remember that as technology goes on rapidly, the hoaxes of the past are going more and more easy to expose. There are conspiracy theories (but I prefer call them simply “theories”) that make absolute nonsense, others are perfectly lawful and put forward good questions, many still to be answared. IMHO the hot topics to stay tuned on (expect surprises) are: space exploration history and the physics of probes in outer space; geological history of Earth, evolution and dinosaurs; the relativity of Einstein and the mathematical relativization of everything that surround us.

@Perimetr. It was the Saker who opened my eyes by confessing that he had been convinced by Architects & Engineers. I followed link in tne Vineyard and found their argument solid and, above all, objective, scientific. Today I found a new and powerful Link in the British truther site, OffGuardian; this Link is to Politicians and Military people who likewise find the 911 Official Report unconvincing.

OffGuardian is a climate destabilisation denial site, bizarrely in the name of Free Speech. It doesn’t like criticism of the Zionazis, either. I was lectured once that mentioning the Jewish elite control of international finance was unacceptable, because banksterism was ‘a traditional Jewish occupation’??!! Otherwise it is a fine site, in my opinion. To paraphrase Groucho, I suspect any site that does not ban me,from time to time.

I bet if Saddam had never attacked Kuwait and oil was left in the ground and sold to the US of A on the cheap 9 / 1 would never have occurred?

To watch millions of barrels of oil “Satan’s Excrement” as the Venezuelans’ like to call it go up in flames must have been a horror to many an administration. There is a view that our world is going to start to see some real pain in the realm of oil. Is Peak Oil true? Gail from https://ourfiniteworld.com/ doesn’t hold to that view however, she does say that easy to find and extract oil is gone and we are now entering an affordability problem because extracting oil is extremely expensive which in turn is having serious effects upon our economies. We are headed for some serious trouble and its all due to a lack of cheap available oil. Her analysis is spot on and it is odd to find no mention of this here? What’s up?

James Kunstler, the author of The Long Emergency in his books and his blog written a great deal about Peak Oil, and describes how the increased cost of accessing the remaining fossil fuels is goingt o change our world.

and lastly and perhaps the one thing that truly seals the deal for me was the Donald’s call to open America’s parks and protected areas to drilling both onshore and off. So something is definitely wrong?

as for all the talk about discoveries like for example the Leviathan field off of the coast of Israel could be true but like Gail argues the capital costs to get it out of the bottom of the ocean is just to expensive to be of any use in an economy that could never afford to pay for it in the end. As she says too, if workers wages could rise high enough to pay for the higher prices of everything then we wouldn’t really have a problem but that just doesn’t happen. It is great to see an actuary take on this subject, she sees things from a totally different perspective and Kunstler is surely recognizing this as well.

Note to the quote from the great oil swindle:

This is why I love quoting Jim Puplava’s observation that the price of oil is the new Fed Funds rate. It has more ability to determine the future of the economy than interest rates.

and Saddam set it all on fire? They must have been pulling their hair out in Babylon er Washington that is?

milan, to continue to seek further oil, gas and coal when the disaster of anthropogenic climate destabilisation caused by emissions of greenhouse gases has proceeded so far already, and so much further destabilisation is ‘baked in’ to the Earth system, is simply omnicidal insanity.

What is today’s ”Green scare” was originally a force for good, and it still is. But the ideological Western official Party Line has changed ”because” of 911.

It was Zbignew Brzezinski who masterminded the Sunni fundamentalist surge as an anti-Soviet and anti-Iranian US foreign policy strategy. But for dumbed down Western sheeple, facts don’t matter that much. The US and its vassals continue to invest heavily in their jihadist proxies against, most notably, Russia, Iran, and Syria. But, surely, that cannot be the case ”because” of 911. And that Israel would have anything to do with these lunatics — and with 911 itself — is, of course, outright blasphemy.

If and when Russia ultimately breaks the back of the ”Green scare forces”, it’s tempting to ask if the latter will be rescued by some rat line to Israel and the West. Judging by Erdogan’s successes when handling Merkel and the EU, that seems all but certain. And a whole new set of funny slanders against Russian-meddling-with-the-aim-of-undermining-Western-internal-stability will be duly invented.

It seems to me that far too much attention is spent on the destruction of the towers. Too much evidence has been lost to ever expect to prove that the government was complicit. An extraordinary event such as a military or intelligence operative coming forward with evidence would be required. Chomsky has stated that even if it were proven that the towers were destroyed by demolition this would not constitute sufficient proof to disprove the official narrative.

On the other hand, there is a clear 9/11 smoking gun that is much more difficult to refute. That is, the anthrax letters sent to, among others senators Daschle and Leahy who happened to oppose the Patriot Act. The anthrax used in the letters was identified as the Ames strain from the US biological research center at Fort Detrick Maryland.

Many more strange facts surround this case than is possible to go into briefly. But these events are almost too obvious. When the source of the anthrax was revealed I was convinced that a coup had occurred.

Ask yourself, or any demolition engineer of your liking, how long it would take to prepare the three towers for controlled demolition. The answer will prove that the WTC security service must have been complicit in the crime or the towers would still stand tall.

Ask why the FBI did not come up with solid proof of the perpetrators and the sequence of events. All the FBI did was collect all potential evidence from wherever they got it. This operation literally vacuum cleaned police offices across the states, but lead no further than seeking Osama bin Laden for charges unrelated to the attacks on 9/11. As a matter of fact, the controlled demolition hypothesis was never pursued seriously.

The US secret services were repeatedly tipped off before the attacks but buried it. The US air defense top officials did anything in their power to stall or delay meaningful action against the hijacked airplanes. The airplanes flew up to an hour unimpeded after air traffic controllers had signaled loss of contact and potential hijacking to the air force.

Taken together with the evidence for insider trading; foreknowledge by certain people working in the towers; the early-morning warning to Israeli citizens not to enter the WTC; the brazen insurance fraud by the Israeli owner of the WTC; the Israeli who documented the attacks (and bragged about it back home); the Israeli caught with explosives in white vans (hat-tip to cautious New Yorkers); and the awards delivered by the US president to the responsible people who failed miserably in preventing the attacks, speaks volumes about the true organizers and/or profiteers.

I have no doubt whatsoever that top officials in several US agencies and the government and/or state department knew what was coming. However, I don’t know to which detail the attacks were planned and organized by these people.

Marcel, I think you’ve missed my point. My point about Chomsky was that fallback narratives of denial are already in place. I don’t believe the official narrative but simply saying something “must have” happened is not proof to the skeptic. Michael Ruppert’s book “Crossing the Rubicon” has documented much highly suspicious facts from 9/11. I find it compelling but the skeptic can always attempt to explain these points as coincidences, evidence of incompetence, etc. To make matters worse, these discussions then always trend towards “directed energy weapons” or the claim that “no one was killed on 9/11”, “no planes were used”, etc.

Well taken. I also think that there is no need for non-conventional tools to explain the events. Planes delivered the first blow and explosive charges finished the job. Hundreds of witnesses (firemen, policemen, pedestrians, onlookers) – close and far – clearly felt, heard and/or saw them and reported it.

However, I would not a priori exclude unknown weapons being used to create additional damage. These would have been side-shows and were certainly not the main cause for the collapse of the towers. If official agencies planned the destruction of WTC, they might have tested new weapons as well.

I agree, and I don’t. Although if I were planning 9/11, I’d want the buildings taken down using the simplest and most reliable methods. Again, though, what always frustrates me is that discussions of 9/11 always revolve around the destruction of the towers. Proving government complicity in that event is a very tough challenge. Even if the buildings were destroyed by demolition, that is not by itself sufficient to implicate the government. They can just claim that Bin Laden was a lot smarter than we thought.

In my opinion, the official story is weakest at one of it’s most critical points. That is, the identity of the perpetrators. The evidence against Bin Laden is much weaker than, say, the evidence against Oswald in the Kennedy assassination. Moreover, several of the supposed hijackers were found to be alive after the attacks. More likely, the individuals put forth as the “hijackers” were using stolen identities and could have been anyone. Without “evil Muslims” as the perpetrators the entire narrative is undercut immediately.

And, finally, as I mentioned, the fact that the anthrax letters were found to be weaponized using an identifiable strain from a US military biolab shows government complicity in quite an obvious way.

Government complicity in 9/11 is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the indisputable fact that the White House aerial defense systems were switched off and remained off. Complicity is further corroborated by the stalling of any thorough investigation into the crime. This is a case where the criminals pretend to prosecute the crime but don’t because they would have to prosecute themselves. The entire official story is such a sham that it falls into pieces at the slightest investigation. The mere fact that the story is still maintained should turn any official defender into a suspect.

By the way, one does not even need to prosecute the former Government for 9/11. Its war crimes in the aftermath were committed in broad daylight, are fully documented, and are completely sufficient to get the commanders into jail for the rest of their days. In the USA, most of these criminals would end on the death row if prosecuted.

Would the US DOJ open a case, the FBI investigate, and the GA prosecute? I won’t bet a dime.

Frankly, I could not care less if the US puts its house in order. However, I want none of these criminals to ever travel outside the US without immediate arrest. Lock’em up in the US! Negate their freedom of international movement and bribe tours (i.e. speaker fees)! This does not need any cooperation by the US institutions. Only some balls at foreign courts. I recall the Malaysian high court: it indicted George W. Bush, Dick Chenney, Donald Rumsfeld and other officials for life.

i seem to remember vaguely that bush junior left as many agreements as he could before going berzerk in its war crimes, international penal system being one of the first…
how no one (diplomatically) calls them on this an other contradictions daily is besides my understanding!
for sure seeing some justice done and them jailed as the criminals they are would be a magnificent sight, i just dont count too much on it… them being soooo exceptional and all…

A good many of the more way-out theories re. 9/11 are plainly disinformation efforts intended to discredit the plain and reasonable ‘conspiracy theory’ ie that the MOSSAD, elements of the US intelligence apparatus and US sayanim Jews did 9/11, and the 19 Arab ‘hi-jackers’ were just the patsies, the Oswalds, Sirhans and James Earl Rays of the day. The towers came down through controlled demolitions, the Pentagon was hit by a cruise-missile and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania and its occupants simply disappeared into a small crater. If you believe the last, in its official version, then I have an Opera House you may care to purchase.

The rabbit hole doesn’t end there, though. Founded by Wall Street lawyers Wild Bill Donovan and Allen Dulles, the CIA has always been a tool of Wall Street. As pointed out by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty:

It is not the President who instructs the CIA concerning what it will do. And in many cases it is not even the Director of Central Intelligence who instructs the CIA. The CIA is a great, monstrous machine with tremendous and terrible power. It can be set in motion from the outside like a programmer setting a computer in operation, and then it covers up what it is doing when men like Frank Hand — the real movers — put grease on the correct gears. And in a majority of cases, the power behind it all is big business, big banks, big law firms and big money. The agency exists to be used by them.

The CIA has since penetrated many other federal agencies with the military a particular target.

One of the most salient features of Western so-called ”official narratives” is their being a flat-out, deliberate insult to plain human intelligence. Chomsky’s assertion to the effect that ”even if it were proven that the towers were destroyed by demolition, this would not constitute sufficient proof to disprove the official narrative” begs the question if the 911 official narrative suddenly involves demolition both from without and from within the buildings; to wit, did the airliners just happen to hit the very moment the towers got blasted?! Add to this the ludicrous hoax of Mohammed Atta’s passport, and the 911 official narrative becomes a beautiful pile of juicy, smelly feces.

It would be tempting to wax humorous on Pindo gullibility and immorality, but it’s the same elsewhere in the West as well. Case in point: New resources allocated in Sweden for solving the murder of Olof Palme 32 years ago. But, as usual, this will be on the strict proviso that the murderer was neither a policeman, nor a military man. Maybe they’ll try their luck this time blaming if not Vladimir Putin, then at least ”the Kremlin”, LOL.

Last but not least: Maybe the most silly thing about 911 — regardless of the official narrative — is that this ”crime of the century” cannot be recognized for the overwhelming joy and Schadenfreude it elicited instantly around the planet.

W.r.t., “the overwhelming joy and Schadenfreude it elicited”, shortly after 9/11, one of my female French friends dryly remarked that seeing the towers collapse was “jouissif” — not a word I would have thought of but quite revealing.

With all due respect to Chomsky, who has written a number of important books critical of US foreign policy, and which are certainly worth reading, the fact remains that he is a linguist by training (and, in fact, not a very influential one). Chomsky is not an engineer.

Thus, regarding the collapse of the towers, I place much greater stock in the analyses of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

A&E’s website is nicely done. However, it ignores the very first website to expose the 9/11 hoax (published just two days after the event) and to point out that it is obvious that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, namely, serendipity.li, with the earliest 9/11 pages at wtc.htm and links to about 200 others at wtc_other_docs.htm.

@Serendipity. This clip from your website goes back to 2001, the year in which the Bush regime committed their terrorist atrocity against the US people. Credit where credit is due:

“The first version of this article appeared on this website on September 13th, 2001. It was restructured and frequently revised during the next three years, yet very few people have ever become aware of its existence, and very few websites concerned with 9/11 have ever included links to this site (though this site links to many other 9/11 websites).”

Do you know what date a school physics teacher posted the first video measurements proving that the Towers collapsed according to Galileo’s Law of Free Fall; I know it was early but how early?

you are referring to david chandler right?
his channel is still active in you tube “david chandler 911”
his first videos of tower 7 where done before the nist report on tower 7.

as an anecdote, I received by email pictures of the pentagon showing the grass intact and only the initial small hole, and low quality video of tower 7 implosion, with clear bangs and all, during the same work week (friday at most) of 911

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.